IMO, the Fix is in

[OUBubba]

Yes, they counted twice but it's not hard to create phony ballots to back up the vote switching (if it did occur). Georgia election witnesses have complained about seeing phony ballots. Yes, but overall Dominion was 5% higher for Biden than Trump over the other voting systems across the nation. Still, there is the possibility there was no vote switching and it was all done with phony ballots alone. That's why we're investigating to get to the truth. The MSM says there's nothing to see here but most of the cyber experts are saying there is. I'll go with them.

The Georgia Secretary of State and the head of their election system, both life-long republicans who voted for Trump call it crazy fever dream stuff. They're now under protection from the crazies.

Maybe Dominion was used in counties that were more democratic leaning.

Why people can't understand these things:

*Hillary was a horrible candidate. Tons of people jumped away from her.
*Trump was an amazing candidate for his base - 38%. They're still lining his pockets as he pretends to "fight the election".
*Like Hillary, Trump was a horrible candidate. Especially for educated suburbanites, women, black people, and (I can speak to this) Indians. Hell, Indians alone cost him Arizona.
*The GOP won down ballot races.
*The GOP kept the Senate (likely).
*If you were going to cheat, you would NOT LOSE THE SENATE!!!!

 

[humahuma]

You need ballots fast you write just Biden. Yes cheating, lazy cheating typical D.

Trump received more votes than 2016, so apparently some people thought he’s doing a good job.

 

[Garmel]

The Georgia Secretary of State and the head of their election system, both life-long republicans who voted for Trump call it crazy fever dream stuff. They're now under protection from the crazies.

Maybe Dominion was used in counties that were more democratic leaning.

Why people can't understand these things:

*Hillary was a horrible candidate. Tons of people jumped away from her.
*Trump was an amazing candidate for his base - 38%. They're still lining his pockets as he pretends to "fight the election".
*Like Hillary, Trump was a horrible candidate. Especially for educated suburbanites, women, black people, and (I can speak to this) Indians. Hell, Indians alone cost him Arizona.
*The GOP won down ballot races.
*The GOP kept the Senate (likely).
*If you were going to cheat, you would NOT LOSE THE SENATE!!!!

Time can be a factor if you're cheating. Of course the Georgia Secretary of State is going to call it BS. All of this occurred under his watch. You have to ask yourself this one important question, Bubba. Why is mail in balloting that normally gets thrown out at a 1-4% rate is so much lower this election? The battleground states are significantly lower this year (sometimes 5-10X less) than every other election before.

Why are we seeing late night large data dumps that are at 95-99% Biden? This is what has the statheads are concerned about. Mail in balloting goes blue but nowhere should it be at these percentages.

 

[OUBubba]

Time can be a factor if you're cheating. Of course the Georgia Secretary of State is going to call it BS. All of this occurred under his watch. You have to ask yourself this one important question, Bubba. Why is mail in balloting that normally gets thrown out at a 1-4% rate is so much lower this election? The battleground states are significantly lower this year (sometimes 5-10X less) than every other election before.

Why are we seeing late night large data dumps that are at 95-99% Biden? This is what has the statheads are concerned about. Mail in balloting goes blue but nowhere should it be at these percentages.

Your guy TOLD PEOPLE TO VOTE IN PERSON AND NOT TO TRUST THE MAIL.

 

[Garmel]

Your guy TOLD PEOPLE TO VOTE IN PERSON AND NOT TO TRUST THE MAIL.

What does that have to do with anything? The percentages are still off.

 

[Monahorns]

Also, the demographic of mail in voters skews old which is Trump's demographic. That would be a factor towards having some Trump mail in votes despite the rhetoric.

 

[Seattle Husker]

The MSM says there's nothing to see here but most of the cyber experts are saying there is. I'll go with them.

The cybersecurity "expert" analysis isn't holding up to any semblance of scrutiny. Here the Detroit Free Press tears apart Russell Ramsland's affidavit. We last remember Ramsland in GA for confusing MI with MN. He's corrected that problem but the affidavit #theKraken submitted in MI asking the judge to overturn the election and name Trump the winner was equally as problematic.

The result? #theKraken's request for injunctive relief was denied today. The MI vote will not be de-certified.

I'm tired of debunking these outlandish claims of >100% turnout so I'll steal from the Detroit Free Press article above.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Also, the demographic of mail in voters skews old which is Trump's demographic. That would be a factor towards having some Trump mail in votes despite the rhetoric.

I don't know if these claims of 90-95% dumps are true. The Trump side's analysis that I've personally evaluated so far should lead anyone to question their claims first.

Still, let's assume that number is correct for the sake of argument. We know based on absentee ballots counted went ~80-85/15-20 for Biden across all the states that waited to count them (MI, GA, NV, PA, etc). That's an overall average, that was certainly impacted by D and R election districts. Is it possible that tranches from urban areas would exceed that average? We're only talking 5-15% difference and if the R counties are removed is that outlandish that heavy D districts would sway so heavily?

Let's take my own county for example, King County in Washington. We are all mail in ballot but we actually start counting early and continue counting ballots received up to 10 days after the election but postmarked by election day. When I looked 2 days after the election King County showed 89% for Biden. Where did it land? 77% for Biden. All that means is that Biden had a heavy early vote turnout that was then pulled down by the late voters, ostensibly still favoring Biden but less so.

Tranches of 90% towards a candidate are not examples of fraud but well within the possible outcomes given where those ballots are coming from.

 

[Garmel]

The cybersecurity "expert" analysis isn't holding up to any semblance of scrutiny. Here the Detroit Free Press tears apart Russell Ramsland's affidavit. We last remember Ramsland in GA for confusing MI with MN. He's corrected that problem but the affidavit #theKraken submitted in MI asking the judge to overturn the election and name Trump the winner was equally as problematic.

The result? #theKraken's request for injunctive relief was denied today. The MI vote will not be de-certified.

I'm tired of debunking these outlandish claims of >100% turnout so I'll steal from the Detroit Free Press article above.

There's a woman by the name of Dr. Linda Lee Tarver (republican) who's an election specialist in Detroit Michigan for decades said you can't trust any of these numbers that's out there and gives an explanation to how they're adjusting things to make them look right. Think about this, if they are more votes than registered people do you think they would admit to it on their website?

You can keep denying that nearly every expert says the numbers are not right in this election but keep clinging to MSM narratives. Just like in your other statements in the past none of this you say will hold up to time.

 

[Seattle Husker]

There's a woman by the name of Dr. Linda Lee Tarver (republican) who's an election specialist in Detroit Michigan for decades said you can't trust any of these numbers that's out there and gives an explanation to how they're adjusting things to make them look right. Think about this, if they are more votes than registered people do you think they would admit to it on their website?

Linda Lee Carver is in a partisan role. Her PhD and all undergraduate degrees were in Organization Development from for profit universities (Pheonix University and Grand Canyon University). She has stood on stage campaigning for DJT and has described herself as a "passionate activist" for Republican and Christian causes. Most recently, she claimed that Black people commit fraud at a higher rate than others.

“the larger the jurisdiction which are people of color, people who look like me, the more fraud that can be inserted into stealing an election.”

It should be noted that she didn't present any evidence...but only claims.

You can keep denying that nearly every expert says the numbers are not right in this election but keep clinging to MSM narratives. Just like in your other statements in the past none of this you say will hold up to time.

Rather than simply taking these witness claims at face value I'm evaluating their statements along with their bias, something you clearly choose not to do. Why? Because they support the narrative you want to believe? Just so we are clear. So far, you 0 for ???? on election fraud claims. Like JoeFan, I doubt you'll have stand up to be accountable but that's the reality. You'll continue on making broad laughable generalities that can't be proven or disproven (e.g. "nearly every expert says) but I'll chalk that up to ignorance. Rather than look deeper you are OK with simply sipping up the claims without actually spending time to look deeper.

It's not a surprise that you NEVER respond to the facts that show the "experts" to be wrong which is why the courts are saying the affidavits are not credible. I get it...you can't defend non-credible data so instead every time simply fall back to the "hundreds" or "thousands" of affidavits as if that number alone offers some form of credibility that doesn't exist.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Sydney Powell is having a very bad day. First her Michigan case was dismissed and just now her GA case was dismissed. Below is what Judge Batten, a Bush Sr. appointee, had to say. This is the case that Powell appealed before the judge even had a hearing and was told she had no grounds for appeal given the court she appealed to didn't have jurisdiction. This is a complete clown show of epic proportions. We'll always have the #ReleaseTheKraken though. In hindsight, the Kraken was a myth (read: never existed) and was defeated by the heroes, much like her legal arguments. I doubt Powell knew how appropriate that metaphor was when she cited it.

“In their complaint, the plaintiffs essentially ask the court for perhaps the most extraordinary relief ever sought in any federal court in connection with an election,” the judge said.

“They want this court to substitute its judgment for that of 2.5 million Georgia voters who voted for Joe Biden, and this I am unwilling to do.”

Batten, a federal judge, said the plaintiffs didn't have standing and should have filed in state court.

 

[Garmel]

Linda Lee Carver is in a partisan role. Her PhD and all undergraduate degrees were in Organization Development from for profit universities (Pheonix University and Grand Canyon University). She has stood on stage campaigning for DJT and has described herself as a "passionate activist" for Republican and Christian causes. Most recently, she claimed that Black people commit fraud at a higher rate than others.



It should be noted that she didn't present any evidence...but only claims.



Rather than simply taking these witness claims at face value I'm evaluating their statements along with their bias, something you clearly choose not to do. Why? Because they support the narrative you want to believe? Just so we are clear. So far, you 0 for ???? on election fraud claims. Like JoeFan, I doubt you'll have stand up to be accountable but that's the reality. You'll continue on making broad laughable generalities that can't be proven or disproven (e.g. "nearly every expert says) but I'll chalk that up to ignorance. Rather than look deeper you are OK with simply sipping up the claims without actually spending time to look deeper.

It's not a surprise that you NEVER respond to the facts that show the "experts" to be wrong which is why the courts are saying the affidavits are not credible. I get it...you can't defend non-credible data so instead every time simply fall back to the "hundreds" or "thousands" of affidavits as if that number alone offers some form of credibility that doesn't exist.

All of the hundreds of people who signed affidavits not evidence? I know the MSM told you they're all unreliable because of one or two bad apples but there are many good ones.

Do you think the judges are looking at the info? For example, the judge in Nevada was given 8,000 pages of evidence showing the 42,000 people who voted twice. He ruled the next day against Trump. Could he read all of that? Like you they probably don't understand statistics. They also seem to be passing the buck just like during Bush's time. Like I said you have some nuts for a guy with your track record. You fall for every single MSM talking point that you're told whether it's the Covington kids, FBI, IRS. etc.. You'll be wrong here as well.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You fall for every single MSM talking point that you're told whether it's the Covington kids, FBI, IRS. etc.. You'll be wrong here as well.

Just out of curiosity, does this mean you're predicting a Trump second term?

 

[Seattle Husker]

All of the hundreds of people who signed affidavits not evidence? I know the MSM told you they're all unreliable because of one or two bad apples but there are many good ones.

Do you think the judges are looking at the info? For example, the judge in Nevada was given 8,000 pages of evidence showing the 42,000 people who voted twice. He ruled the next day against Trump. Could he read all of that? Like you they probably don't understand statistics. They also seem to be passing the buck just like during Bush's time. Like I said you have some nuts for a guy with your track record. You fall for every single MSM talking point that you're told whether it's the Covington kids, FBI, IRS. etc.. You'll be wrong here as well.

This sums up your argument succinctly. Every time a witness or expert is proven to be incorrect you just keep moving onto the next.

 

[Garmel]

Just out of curiosity, does this mean you're predicting a Trump second term?

No, but the truth will come out eventually.

 

[Garmel]

This sums up your argument succinctly. Every time a witness or expert is proven to be incorrect you just keep moving onto the next.

An MSM talking point or a judge not looking/understanding the facts doesn't prove someone or something wrong. Kind of like how in the Georgia poll worker situation it has somehow been "debunked" because the media says so despite the numerous holes in the story.

 

[Horn6721]

All of the affidavits were done at approximately the same time so pointing that there are hundreds of them is not moving the goal post at all. All the affidavits have been at the goal post all along. Asking that they all be considered is not moving anything.
Out of the hundreds will there be some which are hinky?
Yes

Some are attacking the background of the people but strangely enough are not responding to what is in the affidavit.

 

[Seattle Husker]

All of the affidavits were done at approximately the same time so pointing that there are hundreds of them is not moving the goal post at all.

That's not remotely true. In fact, as far as I can tell no case that has been submitted included hundreds or even thousands of affidavits. I've looked. Add up all the public affidavits and you don't get "thousands" as Guiliani claimed when holding up a binder in Michigan and stated "I have 20 more like it". It's a PR ploy to make it seem that there are thousands. So far, in each individual state they've had 10's of affidavits.

The first lawsuit that hit Michigan in the days following election day that included Carrone included ~10 affidavits. Since it was first it makes sense that those affidavits have reached "public" status and thus far 4 judges have found them not to be credible.

Some of the affidavits are changing over time too. Look at that "expert" who confused MN/MI in his data analysis for his GA affidavit then had his Michigan analysis torn to shreds by the Detroit Free Press. He's been one of the few "data experts" courageous to put their data analysis in the affidavit. Others, like the expert Garmel cited chose to build a conspiracy theory out of claims, never actually including any analysis in the affidavit.

Does an affidavit = evidence of fraud? An affidavit IS evidence. I could sign an affidavit that a piece of poop in my yard is from Donald Trump. An affidavit alone doesn't mean it's credible evidence. That's where a judge/jury come into play. Thus far, they haven't found a judge, to say the evidence is credible, they have standing or that the requested injunctive relief, even if there is some semblance of credibility, is warranted. We aren't talk 1 or 2 judges. Dozens of judges have now weighed in on the state and federal level.

Out of the hundreds will there be some which are hinky?

These are the public ones that we've been able to analyze credibility. We aren't talking a few but rather the majority of the public affidavits and/or witnesses to show up to these mock hearings. Keep in mind, no judge has even gotten to the point of having public witnesses because they've evaluated the plaintiff's affidavits, the defendants response and overwhelmingly sided with the defendants, in >95% of the cases.

Some are attacking the background of the people but strangely enough are not responding to what is in the affidavit.

The affidavits and the witnesses have been debated. You haven't been reading closely if you think the witnesses alone have been attacked. In fact, the witnesses have only been attacked when their actions have been odd, like Powell (I know...she's an attorney) or Carrone or the "some Chow walks in" woman from Michigan.

 

[Seattle Husker]

An MSM talking point or a judge not looking/understanding the facts doesn't prove someone or something wrong. Kind of like how in the Georgia poll worker situation it has somehow been "debunked" because the media says so despite the numerous holes in the story.

It's a bold statement to claim the judge wasn't "looking/understanding the facts". Maybe in Arizona the defendant had a more persuasive argument, like the dozen's of other judges have found in dozens of other cases. At some point you might want to ask yourself what isn't my side telling me that the judges are hearing from the other side (the defendants) that is more convincing?

 

[Garmel]

It's a bold statement to claim the judge wasn't "looking/understanding the facts". Maybe in Arizona the defendant had a more persuasive argument, like the dozen's of other judges have found in dozens of other cases. At some point you might want to ask yourself what isn't my side telling me that the judges are hearing from the other side (the defendants) that is more convincing?

Or perhaps it's more likely that the judge is passing the buck like they did with Bush's cases. Bush didn't win one case in Florida. Maybe the Supreme Court will do the right thing.

 

[Seattle Husker]

more likely

Dozens of judges that don't care about their roles but merely wanting to pass the buck up to the SCOTUS. @Mr. Deez what happens when a dismissal is overturned? Does the appellate court get to hear the new case and render verdict (different from upholding the dismissal) or do they simply overturn the dismissal and send it back to the original judge?

 

[Seattle Husker]

 

[Seattle Husker]

Nevada case can't be refiled for at least 5 days which means the Safe Harbor will have passed and the election certified.

 

[nashhorn]

Heck, that makes sense to me I'm working hard to settle with the d*** energy company and their Emminent Domain suit against me because I do not want to get saddled with their attorneys fees either.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Heck, that makes sense to me I'm working hard to settle with the d*** energy company and their Emminent Domain suit against me because I do not want to get saddled with their attorneys fees either.

I get that. You at least have a case. David Spilsbury is another in a long line of frivolous cases.

 

[OUBubba]

This is nothing but a sham trying to raise money to pay off campaign debts. He’s burning the ships. Keeping this crap going is not helping Purdue or loeffler. It’s not helping Cruz, cotton, Rubio, etc. he’s solidifying his 35% base. That’s it.

 

[humahuma]

I knew the fix was in when the media said there was no massive voter election fraud. Done.

 

[Mr. Deez]

@Mr. Deez what happens when a dismissal is overturned? Does the appellate court get to hear the new case and render verdict (different from upholding the dismissal) or do they simply overturn the dismissal and send it back to the original judge?

If an appellate court reverses a dismissal, it remands the case back to the trial court for further proceedings in light of the appellate court's opinion.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Just out of curiosity, does this mean you're predicting a Trump second term?

I am and have been.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I am and have been.

I know. You've been on the Kraken Train from the beginning.